Bridgette C. Lehman
Bridgette Lehman represents clients in a wide range of complex litigation matters, including contractual disputes, financial services litigation, tort litigation and real estate conflicts. Bridgette has experience in both pre-trial and trail proceedings, including drafting pleadings, motions practice, discovery, mediation, pre-trial preparations and trial support. She primarily practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey state and federal courts.
View the full bio for Bridgette C. Lehman at the Faegre Drinker website.
Articles by Bridgette C. Lehman:
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently handed down a decision that impacts the TCPA landscape. In Family Health Physical Medicine, LLC v. Pulse8, LLC, the court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a TCPA claim, adopting a broader interpretation of what constitutes an “unsolicited advertisement” under the Act. This ruling has important implications for businesses operating in the Fourth Circuit and could influence TCPA litigation strategies nationwide.
The case revolved around a fax sent by Pulse8, a health care analytics company, inviting recipients to attend a free webinar on behavioral health coding. Family Health Physical Medicine alleged that this fax violated the TCPA as an unsolicited advertisement, despite not explicitly offering any goods or services for sale. In a decision that expands the scope of TCPA liability, the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged the fax was an advertisement under two theories. Family Health Physical Med., LLC v. Pulse8, LLC, No. 22-1393, *4-*11 (4th Cir. 2024).
Continue reading “Fourth Circuit Broadens TCPA’s Reach Over ‘Unsolicited Advertisements’”
In Marina Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, Ltd. (101 F.4th 176), the Second Circuit addressed critical questions regarding the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) and whether text messages fall under the TCPA’s prohibition against the use of an “artificial or prerecorded voice.”
Marina Soliman brought a putative class action against Subway, alleging that the company had violated the TCPA by sending her automated marketing text messages after she had opted out of receiving them. The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed her claims, concluding that the TCPA did not apply to Subway’s actions. Soliman appealed this decision, but the Second Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s ruling.
Continue reading “TCPA Boundaries Drawn: Marketing Text Messages to Known Telephone Numbers Permitted”
The 7th Circuit recently issued a decision in Smith v. First Hospital Laboratories, Inc., holding that in some “narrow situations” a fax offering to buy a product or service might be considered an advertisement under the TCPA if the fax also refers to a related offer to sell another product or service. 2023 WL 509070, *6 (7th Cir. 2023).
Smith is a decision driven by its particular facts. The plaintiff, a chiropractor1, received two unsolicited faxes from First Hospital Laboratories (FHL), a company that provides health monitoring and screening services through a network of medical providers who act as independent contractors. Id. at *1. The faxes invited plaintiff to join FHL’s network of preferred medical providers. Id. The faxes also stated that FHL would pay plaintiff a fixed rate for each service he rendered to one of FHL’s clients. Id. FHL would refer clients to the plaintiff only if he agreed to allow FHL to invoice the clients directly for the services and neither attempted to obtain more than the fixed rate nor disclosed to the clients the fixed rates that FHL was paying the plaintiff for the services. Id. at *4. The clear implication was that FHL would profit by charging the clients more than the fixed rate it was paying the plaintiff to render the services. Id.
Continue reading “Seventh Circuit’s back-to-back rulings shed light on TCPA’s applicability to unsolicited faxes”
